Slashdot Mirror
Are Videogames Art?
Angry Black Man asks: "The San Fransisco Museum of Modern Art is currently debating whether or not videogames can be considered a type of art. They are currently holding a symposium entitled "ArtCade: Exploring the Relationship Between Video Games and Art." What do you guys think about this? Also, if videogames are considered art than what stops other computer programs from also being considered art? Censoring videogames because of violence or even programs because of DMCA-type laws may be considered censoring art - something that many Americans have traditionally been very opposed to?" When Slashdot covered computer graphics as fine art, many of you agreed that it was. When asked about beautiful code, many thought so and gave their reasons as to why. Now comes a question about the combination of the two. Are computer games not considered art simply because of its nature as an entertainment medium, or can video games be considered art precisely because they can be thought of as combinations of graphics and code?
... if their creators believe that it is. Whether or not someone thinks my drawings are art, I think they are -- and that makes them art. They take skill to create, and I take joy in making them. That, I think, is art.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Video games are as much art as movies are. In fact, one of my hopes for the gaming industry is to see it mature - at least in some ways - into something similar to the movie industry, where there is room not only for the heavily-produced blockbusters, but also for more artisticly-inclined "indy" titles.
Art forms like video games tend to get mired in these sort of debates because they lack snob appeal. People figure that if it doesn't need an endowment, it's not art. People don't sit in high-rent apartments in an artsy-fartsy section of town in fancy clothes sipping spritzers and discussing the finer points of Q3, so it must not be art.
Science fiction has gotten mired down in this debate, as has commerical art of all forms, as did theater at one time. Good grief.
To me, it seems that computer graphics can definitely be art. But programming is more of a craft. It's about making something well. And just like a well-executed piece of furniture, a program's internal beauty is irrelevant to the users-- it's how it looks and how it works that matters to the people who use it.
Sure, computer games contain art. Their music and images often have artistic worth. But we want computer games that are well designed and skillfully executed, not artistic statements.
I'm a programmer, and I've got a lot of respect for the creativity and hard work that goes into computer games. But I see them as a craft, not an art.
Anyone know why this is a story instead of a poll?
The same is true with video games. System Shock 2 *IS* scary and only a skilled team of artists could craft such a thing. Does anyone remember playing DOOM at night and being in an area with strobe lights, those invisible demons growling and the like? Did that stir any emotions in you? Probably yes. Such a feat is a work of art.
Creating such things is an artform that is developed and perfected by people who like to do it.
They may not be considered art by the moajority of people right now, but given a few years I expect that they will be. With the amount of work by ARTISTS that goes into the design of these games and the skill of some of the best coders around, its hard to believe that they arent considered art already. Even now there are thousands of people who obsess over classic video games, emulating old systems and collecting thousands of game roms. Its only a matter of time before people begin to view these games as probably the most innovative and original art form of this century. In the age of multimedia and computer graphics, video games are the epitome of these arts.
Oh Well, Whatever, Nevermind...
I mean seriously, did you SEE the Pauly Shore movies?
IMHO, there's art and there's entertainment...and both movies and videogames can fall into either category...
My $5.95.
And yes, I am an artist (mostly music, but I dabble in just about everything).
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I dunno, consider when Unreal came out.
Absolutely stunning even in low res.
Remember the userfriendly cartoon:
"That is the prettiest slide show I've ever seen.
What is it called?"
Answer: "It's 'Unreal'".
Now, the code being beautiful, by extension.
Humm...code is the tool of the trade, the brush, if you will, the screen the canvas and the results can be artistic.
But then again, coding has been called "an art form".
Form is the active word. Not art, per se, but a way to create art, or express yourself via code.
Any other thoughts out there?
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
If I throw a urinal into a museum, or yell "DADA!" out in the streets, everyone agrees that it's art (because it's been established as so).
But if I band together some talented artists, animators, and ingenious programmers, and create something truly remarkable like Deus Ex or Halo, people question it.
Such things (vidgames) would not exist without human creativity. They're physical manifestation of human creativity. If that's not art, what is?
Moderators should have to take a reading comprehension test.
Personally, I've always thought of computer games as art, no matter what the "officials" may say. The defining factor, I think, is the fact that it has a story. A computer game tells a story with a protagonist, an antagonist, a setting, theme, plot, climax...everything you need for a decent novel. Sure, many computer games are very shallow, which would make them bad art...but still art.
As for programming in general...it depends. It can be art, or not. Generic programming is much like technical writing. It is utilitarian, not artistic. It is a task assigned to someone, that any old monkey could do - not an artistic expression of one person's vision. However, this is not always true. Just as there are generic chairs that sell for $10.99 at K-Mart and then bizzarre sculptures of chair-like things on display at galleries, there can also be artistic programs. Someone can write artistic code...but code doesn't have to be artistic.
I think it's just a little early yet for most of the world to accept code as art. I'm sure it took a while for people to recognize the artistry that can go into photography as well.
yrs,
Ephemeriis
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Why do people agonize about whether particular things can be "considered" art?
... again, a matter of intention. If I make an object with a long metal prong flattened into a small, blunted, flat-edge blade that happens to fit into the slot at the end of a woodscrew, and declare that the primary purpose and my artistic intent is for it to be manipulated by human hands to express the beauty of simple machines by inserting or removing screws from objects, Fine -- it's art that happens to serve as a screwdriver. That doesn't make every screwdriver art.
If you consider something to be art, who the heck is going to stop you? Other people might disagree (hey, my thoughts on art may vary from yours -- so what?) but that's about the extent of it.
Now given that, I don't particularly agree that video games are art, *unless that's what the creator intended*, in which case I have no objection -- then it's art. IMO (which one one else has to buy), Art is *intentional* - accidental doodles, sunsets, plants, shadows, streams or functional objects might be artful, or beautiful, or even artistic, but things get too floppy for me if anything that happens to look nice, or that makes you think, is automatically "art." Not everything sculptural (Zhang Ziyi, for instance, or a Nagra tape recorder) is actually sculpture.
Having groused that practical objects which happen to be pretty aren't, I would say that the other direction is not quite the same, though. An artwork could have a hands-on function which rendered it a useful object
Maybe this helps to explain why I think the money given to the NEA would be much better given to model rocket clubs around the country, or never taken from taxpayers in the first place.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I'm an avid video game player, and have been for several years. At first, I read this story and said to myself "HELL NO", as I really don't buy into much of the modern art out there today. A lot of it does not seem to be the result of talent, thought, meaning, or artform. The same thing can be said about MANY video games. This is why I originally said "HELL NO". However, there are exceptions. Final Fantasy is perhaps one of the most moving video game series every produced on this planet. It has story, it has beauty, depth, and meaning. It is art. Just as there exists art with little or no apparant worth to me, there exist video games with little or no apparant worth. Yet, there are the few that truly qualify as art. So, in conclusion: some video games should be considered art, just as some "art" should really not be considered art.
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
and for reasons even "Average Joe/Jane" can easily appreciate.
To begin with, (as a programmer) I consider most code art in and of itself. When you consider that video games are composed of creative code, graphics, and sound, you have to classify it as an art form.
The very fact that the people who create the visual environment for video games are most commonly described as "graphic artists" is compelling evidence that our society considers their work a form of art in a very tangible sense.
I for one would love to see an exhibit that's based on various interpretations/muses on video games, both in part and as "complete packages".
As many of my compatriots have already stated, there is no doubt that Games are art, or have the potential to be. The question for me is: What can Games do as an art, which is different from Movies and Books? The answer is simple, if not a little obvious: The if statement. Although it has been tried with interactive movies and Choose-your-own-adventure books, only in games have truly interactive stories come to some sort of life. The basic difference is the role of the viewer/reader/player in the story world. For both Movies and Books, the user is just a passive observer, seeing exactly what the artist wanted them to see. With games however, leeway is given; they become an active character in the story, which opens up whole new avenues of experience. Very few if any games have taken real advantage of these differences as of now. But I think (or hope perhaps) that as games become a little easier to develop (via more generalized code components) it will become a much more rich medium. For a first glimpse at this sort of thing, check out the 2001 Interactive Fiction Competition
So there I was, juggling apples and small animals, when I accidentally bit into the wrong one...
Ok, movies are considered art. Music is considered art. These are both entertainment mediums so I would highly doubt that if it is infact because it is an "entertainment medium" that video games would not be considered art. I think the biggest deal lies in the interactive nature of it. A sculpture, painting, etc are not interactive besides looking and maybe touching. Video games take in all your senses except smelling and I'm sure the ps7 will even do that. But think about it, how many of you have put a game on and just been blown away by it to the point where you sit there like an idiot just watching? I can humbly say that there have been a few ocasions I have done that... the biggest being the Lunar series for Sega CD which blew away anything else at the time. Lets see what else... maybe Myst the first time I saw it (even if it is a stupid game), Ecco the Dolphin on Sega CD, etc. I guess it all comes down to the definition of the word art, which dictonary.com says is:
art1 (ärt)
n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
6.
1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
7.
1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: ?Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice? (Joyce Carol Oates).
8.
1. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
2. Artful contrivance; cunning.
9. Printing. Illustrative material.
I would say that just based on the first two definitions that video games are not only art but infact are more art than anything else. Just read them again and think about them in regards to video games.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Have you played Civilization 3? If you don't consider that one of the great masterpieces of all time, then I don't know what is.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
...start a silly flamewar.
No two people agree on what "art" means. I would suggest these are the most popular definitions:
1) image created by human skill and effort using general marking tools (not photography), or field of creating such images, or collective product of this field
2) any field of human endeavor, or products of same (formal, somewhat archaic)
3) any admirable human effort or product of human effort
4) anything with no practical value other than aesthetic appeal
5) anything displayed behind a velvet rope in an art gallery
The word is so muddled that there's no point in using it without further clarification, except perhaps with the first or second definition, when the context makes it clear. It just provokes pointless arguments where nothing gets resolved.
Forgive me if this doesn't seem to have much direction, but this is something I've thought a bit about. I'm a student at a private fine arts college, and I'm one of the few there with interests in video games, programming, etc.
Scott McCloud of "Understanding Comics" fame once wrote that art is anything not springing directly from man's need to survive or procreate. In that sense, well, playing video games could be considered an art, but making them stems from a creator's need to earn money, so he can eat, so he can survive-- not art. But there are other, easier ways to make money; the video game creator chooses to make games because he or she is good at it and (hopefully) has an interest in the field. He or she puts personal touches into their work and it's different from what anybody else could do-- art.
It's a tough call, this. Because since Marcel Duchamp put a bicycle wheel upside down on a pedestal almost a hundred years ago and declared that it was art because he said it was, a sort of Pandora's Box has been open: we've got the most liberated sense of art there ever has been (an artist can do anything he wants and try to sell it, really) but we've also got cretins that feel art is simplistic and easy, because they don't understand the thought behind found objects or abstract expressionism or anything else to come along in the twentieth century.
I tried telling a friend while we were in a Renaissance history class about how it seemed to me that the development of 3D engines like Carmack's Quake and Sweeney's Unreal had some interesting parallels to the development of rendering techniques in Italian painting of the 15th century onward. The Italian painters started off with flat images, little depth, and distance was conveyed by placing objects higher on a picture plane-- it was the Wolfenstein era, you could say. But then artists like Giotto (if memory serves) came along, and started figuring out better ways to shade, to manipulate color, and to make objects seem rounded-- to actually occupy a space. The Renaissance of painting started, and it was like the first Quake. And so on and so forth.
Where are we now? Well, the technical craft has all but been mastered in video games; it's not photoreal, so games are somewhere around the middle-18th century, I'd wager. I can't wait until the technical aspect becomes so perfected that it becomes boring to the artists making video games; then the modernist era of videogames begins, and we can see just what kind of creativity these guys really have.
(A note on the above: I'm no expert in the history of painting or the history of games, so the paragraphs above are mostly meant to illustrate the similarities in the goals of the painters and the programmers. Anybody's free to correct me if I'm wrong.)
But then there's the commercial aspects of the video game industry. A lot of games are made for money. It's much like the film industry, I think, where you've got some works that are obviously done to make a buck (the latest Schwarzenegger flick) and then some that are done for the passion of the craft (Wes Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, to name a few of the better of the younger generation, and so on). But it'd be impossible to say that there is no art in the film industry, just because it's driven by money. It applies the same way to video games: Miyamoto's "Pikmin" is art, the new "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" probably is not.
So where am I ending up with all of this? I don't know, I suppose it's all just food for thought. My personal feeling is that video games certainly are art, and it's nothing but snobbery from the elitist old guard that says they're not. You've gotta get with the times.
Code is the paint. Video games are the art.
trollin' trollin' trollin'...
If there's one thing I've learned from emphasizing my studies in the philosophy of aesethetics...
Yawn. All that makes you is a critic.
However, code is just a skilled labor position, much like assembly work or something along those lines. You people really need to think before you post.
Code is to a computer game as scaffolding is to a sculpture. You've missed the point, Mr. Aestheticist. If it gives the audience an experience, that makes it comparable to any narrative work, which makes a computer game just as much a work of art as literature or film. How it goes from inspiration to final product is irrelevent.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Video games are the greatest form of art to come along in human history. Both visual and aural stimulation combine to envelop the player in an experience forged by the game's creator. Expression is taken to levels never seen before in video games. As video games progress, we will see video games that become more and more expressive of a single person's concepts and ideas, because the tools to make the games will eventually become simple and fast enough for a single person to use to create a game. Neverwinter Nights, an upcoming role-playing game with the capability for users to design their own games with it, is a great example of just how this will all work out.
You know that Beethoven was the first musician be considered an artist. Before that, they were considered skilled laborers. Mozart was very skilled at cranking out beautiful music in short order. Now, we consider music to be art. Photography and motion pictures went through the same transition. What happened? Debates like this. So, thank you for calling programming a "skilled labor position." It gives this debate a certain legitimacy.
You should note that "assembly work" (by which I assume you mean "assembly line work") is not considered to be skilled labor. Also, I was not aware that "code" is a position. Maybe you, too, should think before you post.
For example, I would consider a game like Black & White to be Art, but not a game like Daikatana. Naturally, to make this distinction requires some personal judgement. I'm sure John Romero thinks that Daikatana is a piece of art.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Any time a new art form comes along it takes awhile for the public to accept it as legitimate. Take film for example. In the first 30 years of the century, film was a medium for popular entertainment mostly but had yet been embraced by the intelligentsia. The medium was mostly used for entertainment, but here and there were glimpses of art or social messages or what have you.
When Citizen Kane came along, here was a movie that used all of the unique elements that make up film for artistic purposes. It was groundbreaking in that the lighting, photography, music, camera angles, editing and so on all came together to form this wonderful work of art.
I don't think videogames have come this far yet. Now, there are many games that give us glimpses of art and beauty (Zelda games, SNES Final Fantasy games, a glimmer in Black and White, etc.) but no one has yet made the Citizen Kane.
And why not? Well, in the film industry, it took the genius of one man (Orson Welles) and the amazing backing of a studio system (which later destroyed Welles). But the videogame industry is so much harder to work with when art is concerned. Not only are videogames really expensive, but they are looked down upon by those people who could afford to fund game art. The problem here is that a game has to be aesthetically pleasing and interactive, which, if you think about it, is really hard to do. Most people just want to run around and shoot people in realistic environments.
So I put out a challenge to all of you videogame makers out there: try to make the Citizen Kane of video games - it doesn't have to be popular among teens or particularly well-liked by the public, it just has to be good. I've tried thinking of ideas myself, but I've failed so I leave it to the geniuses that I know are out there but who probably don't have financial backing. If you are someone like this, I wish you the best of luck!
The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool. -Crowe
Having recently finished ICO on the PS2, I'd have to insist that anyone considering this question play this game to completion. As pure visual and emotional art, it is more complete than more works I've ever experienced.
On the literary side, I'd also have to insist anyone considering this subject thoroughly explore the game Planescape: Torment. The way this game reacts to actions, expectations, and self-reflection is quite amazing. If you read any review of this game, you can appreciate how difficult it is to put in a few words how
Both of these games tell a story that would be _Impossible_ to tell without the freedom to explore the story, and the strength of the choices given to one exploring it. These games fundamentally connect to many core aspects of the human state in both the same ways 'traditional' art does, and in many ways impossible to do so before - they are fundamentally art in my eyes.
Ryan Fenton
The effort to combine storytelling, visuals, music and game mechanics requires an enourmous amount of talent on the part of a director / producer for his vision to shine through. The same is true for movies.
This is why it is much easier to look at a painting or a poem and see that it is a reflection of the artistic and creative vision of the creator, as he or she had full control over the creative process.
As far as coding itself is concerned, IMO the idea of it being a craft seems for the most part a little more fitting. Squeezing performance out of a limitted hardware platform is more a result of skill and intelligence, much like an innovative design for a bridge.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
From http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=art :
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b. The study of these activities.
c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
6.
a. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
b. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
7.
a. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: ÒSelf-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practiceÓ (Joyce Carol Oates).
8.
a. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
b. Artful contrivance; cunning.
Dictionary.com thinks video games are art.
nuff said.
Anyway, my point is, if they come out and say that video games are not art, they're massive hypocrites, because damnit, if a canvas painted completely in blue is art, then just about any video game is going above and beyond art.
If you want to know whether video games are art or not, just take a look at the credits... artists/audio engineers typically outnumber programmers 1.5:1 - 2:1
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Not all programming is art any more than all painting is art. Some painting is just putting a color on a house. It's not artful, it's functional. Some programming is exactly the same way. Being the hundred thousandth CS student to write a quick sort does not make you an artist.
If putting a Cricifix in P!$$ can be called art, and not to mention some of the sculptures at the Carnegie Museum, then sure as heck computer programs and games can be art.
Videogames are art. I define "art" as anything that requires creativity. However, most videogames aren't fine art. This is because the medium of video game is inherently a form of entertainment, and was created as a way to make money. Yes, video games have come a long way since SpaceWar!, but most still aren't fine art.
For a videogame to be considered fine art, in my opinion, it must have an emotional impact upon the player. Therefore, most engaging RPGs could be considered fine art, in the same way that an engaging story would be. What about those "survival horror" games? Fine art, they (most of them *cough cough Clock Tower*) cause fear, even though most of them don't tell stories.
Or, fine art videogames must be original. You can't just put an artsy spin on a cliched genre and succeed. When I think of videogames as art, several titles come to mind: Diablo I, Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Super Mario 64, Zelda: OOT, Ultima IX, Baldur's Gate. All of these introduced new things to their genres, all of these were original. Sequels are rarely fine art because they're not original. Example: Resident Evil = Fine art. Its sequels, however, were mainly rehashings of the original with new puzzles and enemies.
Or, a fine art videogame can be innovative. Game developers, add something new to games! All platformers were mostly the same, then Abe's Odyssee came along. All 3rd person shooters were mostly the same, then MGS came along. All PC RPGs were mostly the same, then Baldur's Gate came along. Did anyone realize that these games actually added something new to the genre? That they weren't clones of old games? Cold that be why they were so fun? Innovate! Arguably one of the most underrated titles in the PSX's history was Ape Escape. Why? It actually used the 2nd analog stick as control for weapons! It was a work of art - it forced us to think about controlling differently.
My two cents.
-ChardishPlay Ico on PS2. Play Shenmue II on Dreamcast/XBox. Play Luigi's Mansion on Gamecube.
If you can then say with a straight face that videogames aren't as much art as, say, the winners of the Turner prize, then there's no hope for you.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
All those board games were about entertainment and/or fantasy. Did they serve a purpose like a tool? No, they were there for the purpose of entertainment to the beholder. Video games I would say are even more so art than boardgames. They let you live out fantasies or just enjoy the beautiful surroundings (i.e. riven). Some would even bring into question alot about ethics and political espoinage, etc. (i.e. dues ex). So it really is a matter of perspective, which is what art is anyway.
;)
p.s. Of course only free and open source games are truly art. The other stuff is commercially produced so it doesn't really count.
"It has always been this way and it won't change, god bless the fucked up USA" The Briefs
Video games aren't art in the traditional sense that the patron/consumer can alter it. Most art - paintings, sculpture, music, drama - is alterable by its creator, but not by the patron. However, we could consider video games to be a play where the players are the actors and the developers are the playwrights. And the value of the video game could be the degree to which the developers can excite the players to perform. An unplayed game would be an incomplete composition; a complete composition of a video game would have to include players.
Thus, in the classical definition of art, the value and quality of video games would be defined by their popularity. They would be most valuable while popular, and worthless once pasee. They would not accumulate value over time.
Hah, well I guess this is going to get buried, I'll just paste the article in here and see if anyone notices it that way:
"Escaping the 'Tomb'"
Breasts. How could they turn on me like this? After all the times we've shared? Breasts are standing in the way of something important; something more important to me, a 21 year old man, than sex. Breasts are retarding the actualization of the first emerging art form of the 21st century. Upon telling the proverbial Man on the Street you're studying to enter the field of video game design you will receive one of two reactions. Anyone over the age of thirty will say "Oh, that's nice" accompanied by a condescending, vacant stare. The reaction elicited from my younger peers: an exclamatory "awesome!" and the pantomimed fondling of oversized, imaginary breasts. Having already decided to devote my life to the creation of games, these reactions can only depress and infuriate. They can only be construed as a direct result of the popularity of games like the odious Tomb Raider. The problem is clear, but what it not clear is whether gaming can ever escape this "Tomb" of juvenility and negative perception. At their heart games are an art form as viable as motion pictures or photography and are destined to be recognized as so in the near future. This form, interactive video art, will be increasingly accepted as the technology that comprises it stabilizes and as the current base of enthusiastic reviewers convert to game criticism, thereby propagating academic awards for excellence in games. It is the defining cultural phenomenon of this generation. It cannot and will not be denied its artistic merit.
In order to address games as art, we must first fashion a working definition for art. Foremost amongst artistic considerations should be aesthetics. As Berys Gaut eloquently states in Theories of Art Today, good art "possesses positive aesthetic properties such as being beautiful, graceful, or elegant (properties which ground a capacity to give sensuous pleasure"(28). In addition, good art presents a statement, imbued with the unique perspective of its creator and was intended as a piece of art. It is able to make a statement about life, society, or even about itself. It pushes the boundaries of its medium and challenges people to think about themselves and the way they relate to the world (it is edifying both generally and personally). Finally and foremost in determining games' artistic viability, good art is a compelling experience, one that can be shared and intellectualized. I've devoted myself to games because I have found their experience more compelling than any other media.
A general definition hammered out, we must now make delineation between literary, narrative-based arts and other forms of art. Games, in the form they now exist, are narrative art. In a piece of narrative art "the object is not the work. The strip of celluloid itself is not the work, any more than the paper and ink of a book is the work. With a game, the CD is not the work."(Adams) The experience is the work. As a generalization, it can then be inferred that, in narrative art, the artistic strength of the work lies in how compelling the storyline and characters are. Another important factor that must be addressed is the fact that narrative arts by definition rely on their medium's stability. Indeed, literary art forms as a whole are lacking one characteristic from our list: the pushing of their medium's boundaries. This does not, however, preclude their artistic viability. The point is that a finite degree of stability must exist in a narrative-based medium in order to maintain suspension of disbelief (how compelling the experience is). This presents a problem for games' advancement as a viable medium. Unfairly, this problem is not based on evaluation of artistic qualities, but rather on the unfamiliarity and instability of delivery platform. In this respect, the only thing holding games out of artistic actualization is a swath of negative perception, both public and academic.
The largest contributing factor in this negative perception of games is technology. The technology that powers games is unstable. According to Dr. Gordon Moore, co-founder and CEO of Intel Corp., "Integration complexity doubles every three years"(4). This is known and accepted throughout the computer industry as 'Moore's Law'. Distilled, this means that central processors, essentially the brain of any computer, double in power every 18 months. To a game designer this lack of standardized delivery makes it extremely difficult to create an experience that is identical for each who partake in it (the afore-mentioned stability so vital to narrative art). This, in turn, makes it extremely difficult to accurately identify and evaluate the aesthetic (artistic) properties of a game.
An example: in a film the amount of frames projected on the screen per second remains a constant 30 frames per second (fps). In a game, however, fps is constantly vacillating. In a real-time environment the current position of everything that exists within must be constantly recalculated. The efficiency of this process relies on the speed of the computer on which it's being run, which is primarily limited by the computer's central processor. Taking into account the fact that only a very small percentage of people can afford to upgrade their systems every 18 months, developers are left aiming their games at a broad range of systems, effectively preventing control of how the final piece is viewed. At this point, then, the aesthetics of their work effectively leaves their control. There is, however, an end in sight.
Moore himself, in a 1996 update to the original speech which spawned 'Moore's Law', predicts that the physical limits of silicon will only allow this phenomenon to continue for another two decades. This being said, it is clear that technological stability is close at hand. Without dismissing the possibility and drive to have their artistic viability cemented now, it can be stated with certainty that when the platform for delivery stabilizes into something that is consistent and can be experienced identically by anyone, the technology will be in place to enable games to be recognized as an art form.
Having mentioned the fact that narrative arts like film rely on stability of medium and subsequently addressing games' current lack of stability it is important to address this stability in the medium of film.
It is undisputed that "the motion pictures did not originate as an art but as machine."(Fulton 3) What is not clear, however, how this metamorphosis (from novelty to art form) occurred. It is clear, however, that this change depended principally on standardized delivery.
Thomas Edison patented the first motion picture camera in 1893. Most of the earliest moving images were non-fictional, crude, and unedited: documentary views of ordinary slices of life (street scenes, the activities of police or firemen, or shots of a passing train). In the mid 1890s the Edison Company introduced the Kinetoscope. The Kinetoscope was a bulky, coin-operated movie peep show viewer for a single customer. Early spectators in Kinetoscope parlors were amazed by even the most mundane moving images: an approaching train or parade, women dancing, dogs terrorizing rats. This initial phenomenon quickly lost its appeal with the advent of the projector as film's primary form of delivery. People began to demand not simply a novelty but entertainment. In just a few years, one could spend an evening at the cinema for a nickel.
The first nickelodeon, a small storefront theater, opened in 1905 and became the first permanent movie theatre. A short, silent film was usually accompanied with piano playing, songs, lectures, or vaudeville-type acts. Early nickelodeon films such as The Great Train Robbery attempted to gain artistic credit both by coupling themselves with stage acts and by emulating the expressive techniques of stage acting (techniques like pantomime). The working class quickly embraced the nickelodeon as an alternative to the cost-prohibitive theater. This gave film its initial audience, one which did little to lend credibility to public perception film's artistic aspects. Spurred by racist sentiment, anti-immigrant prejudice, and social discrimination, newspaper critics soon denounced movies as "morally objectionable and "the cause of social unrest". They called for censorship.
Games began life in much the same way, as a technological novelty, crude and unexpressive. Early games were almost totally non-graphical, non-representational. Primitive, triangular groupings of pixels were spaceships, heros, and aliens. Like the kinetoscope, the novelty initially precluded the content. People marveled simply at being able to control what was happening on the screen, in any form. In the same way film found its first audience in the poor immigrant workers, games moved into acceptance as a subcultural phenomenon with the advent of arcades, which contained games like Pong and Space Invaders. In much the same idium as film, this subculture has been attacked by the media and denigrated to by the general public. Even now games are being blamed for current trends of social violence. These are the growing pains of an emerging art form.
Film's growing pains ended in 1915 with the release of Birth of a Nation. While Birth of a Nation certainly had its share of artistic merit, the one thing that truly allowed it to be a pioneering critical and artistic success was technology.
"Technically, the film was a brilliant and stunning new cinematic work - a screen masterpiece which advanced the art of film-making to new heights, with beautifully-structured battle scenes, costuming, and compelling, revolutionary story-telling, editing and photographic techniques (dollying, masking, use of irises, flashbacks, cross-cuts and fades)."(Dirks 2)
While these advances in methodology were extremely important to the growth of film itself as a medium, Birth of a Nation could never have been successful if it had not been for the nickelodeons paving the way and establishing how a film was supposed to be viewed. Once this was established, once people accepted and understood that going to a film meant suspending disbelief, films were free to deliver their messages. Once this freedom was attained, it was only a matter of time before someone like D.W. Griffith, someone with a compelling experience to share, got behind the reins. Albiet, Griffith compelled people to see the KKK as heros, but that was irrelevant in terms of film's growth. Film as art arrived with standardized delivery.
The experience of watching a film has remained stable for almost fifty years. You go to a theater, sit in the dark facing a giant projection screen for two hours and experience whatever the film-makers intended you to experience. It's relevant to ask the question: Would you be able to have the same experience if, for some reason, the projector was focused on the ceiling of the theater? For a majority of people the answer is no, simply because they'd not be willing to make that adjustment.
Another important point to note about film, one which lends additional credibility to games as an art form, is the fact that though film is an art form, not all films are art. Today, games are not considered an art form, though some games are art. Film today is accepted as an art form, removing from consideration those films obviously making no attempt at artistic viability. Films are visually and aurally elegant, contain the unique perspectives of its creators, and often make statements about society or life. They are often intended to provoke thought or educate on a particular subject, and are an experience that can be shared and intellectualized. Most importantly, films provide a compelling experience. They arrived at this point through a painful, iterative process in which all that was weak in their medium was weeded out, each generation building on its predecessor's strengths.
The reason people are so willing to suspend disbelief for a film is not because it is a more powerful form of expression than a game, it's simply because of precedent. At its inception photography suffered the same lack of precedent. The first successful photograph was produced by a Frenchman named Niépce in July of 1827 using material that hardened when exposed to light. In 1829 Niépce entered into a partnership with Louis Daguerre, who then discovered a way of developing photographic plates, reducing the exposure time from eight hours down to half an hour. This was followed by the discovery that an image could be made permanent by immersing it in salt. In 1844, his process refined and simplified, Daguerre sold his invention to the French government, naming it the Daguerreotype. What ensued could only be described as a fad, popular culture, nothing more. Daguerreotype madness gripped France. Everyone was amazed at the simplicity of creating an image without the knowledge or skill of drawing. Photography retained this stigma of fad until the late 19th to early 20th century, fifty years later.
The Pictorialist movement, considered the first artistic movement of photography, did for photography what Birth of a Nation did for film. By emulating existing works of art, specifically romantic and realist paintings, works like Alfred Stieglitz' Mountain and Sky bridged the gap between photography and representational painting. By emulating established works of art, the Pictorialists grounded their work in established aesthetics. Considerations like composition, framing, and use of light came into play. The point was to establish that photography can and does possesses all the necessary components to be considered art. It is beautiful and elegant in the same way that representational painting is. It is literally the view of its creator, since a photograph is essentially what the artist was seeing the moment he took it. Also, as in painting, statements are easily made by photographs simply through choice of subject matter. Finally, photographs can be intellectualized, the experience of viewing them shared. That photography possessed these qualities was not asserted for many years. In fact, photography initially met with violent opposition.
Before the middle of the 19th century, art was representational, attempting to recreate the human figure and natural scenes perfectly and accurately. When photography was invented it was considered something of a fraud by established painters and was nearly squelched out of existence. Existing artists were afraid that it would impinge on their livelihood. There was heated debate and vocal artistic outcry that lasted decades. In the end, however, it was conceded that photography possessed the necessary characteristics to assert its claim as an art form. In fact, photography benefited art greatly by freeing it to no longer be purely representational. Unshackled by this historical crux, art was liberated to advance as a medium into realms like Dada and abstract expressionism.
Like games, both photography and film possessed undeniable artistic qualities that, at first, lacked clear definition. Through social perseverance and through the essential and intrinsic strengths of their mediums, photography and film were actualized as true forms of art. One thing that precluded these assertions, however, was the establishment of functioning critical base for both media.
In professional criticism lies the largest influence over public perception. Criticism stems from the need to intellectualize and qualify comparative experience. This need allows critics, effectively and comparatively a very small group of people, to sway the entire public opinion.
When a medium develops what is essentially a subculture of people whose entire purpose is to evaluate pieces of that medium based on a certain criteria, whatever that criteria might be, it lends an artistic viability to that medium that no single artist can hope to achieve. The other function professional criticism serves is to educate. People read criticism because they themselves have only a finite amount of time to devote to leisure activities. Reading critical analysis by people whose entire job is to evaluate pieces allows the public a way to presort their choices, hopefully in order to allow them not to waste their precious time. Therefore they rely on critics to be intelligent, well informed, and to have an excellent grasp on the established language of criticism. A change must be made, then, from today's insubstantial game reviewer
The enormous volume of gaming review websites and publications must make the subtle but vital change from strict review to actual criticism. A game critic must be lucid, well informed, and intelligent. He must evaluate games with respect not only to other games, but with respect to film, literature, and other arts. He must to evaluate games with respect to games as a medium and to how well the game manipulates or uses the medium. Finally, a game critic must adhere to criteria of evaluation more or less agreed on by his peers. There is very little, if any, criticism in the gaming world. There is review. It is extremely important to make this distinction. There is a voluminous cornucopia of publications, on and offline, which deal with game review. People play games then they say whether or not they liked them and why. The problem inherent here is that these reviewers think only in the context of other games, and lack the abstraction necessary to form real, concrete criteria for judging a medium. Observe:
"So upon opening up the thing, we found a nifty Max Payne mousepad and a DVD case (similiar to PS2 game cases) holding the actual game. Weird...yes, but hell, i'm a fan of boxes so it certainly suffices. Now one problem i did have from the start is that in the instruction booklet, Max Payne claims to be the first game ever to feature slo-mo effects in a game. Now, Hitman Codename 47 wasn't shipped with the slo-mo option, but days after its release, there was a patch that featured it for those 'matrix' type bullet exchanges. So, i've got to say, Hitman has stolen some of Max Payne's thunder in a lot of respects. Nit picks aside, i can honestly say that while not being a perfect game and even missing features that Hitman had (not including slo-mo) Max Payne looks like it will be up there as one of the best action games of all time. Now although we haven't played enough for a review yet, i'm not going to claim that it IS the best action game of all time...but...sometimes first impressions last. We'll see." (Tillesburg)
This is a typical online review for a recently released game called Max Payne. The first thing that should become obvious is the almost nonsensically blasé style of writing. The juvenility of the colloquialisms used is overshadowed only by the heinous grammatical and spelling errors. It's apparent that the writer made no attempt to present information in a reasonable, educated manner. Another factor miring publications of this type is the afore-mentioned context. To truly provide criticism, one must review a piece in terms of both its peers (of the same medium) and of other media. There is very little attempt to evaluate the aesthetic qualities of the game, at least no intelligible one. The author is obviously not interested in any thought the creators of Max Payne intended to provoke in him. In addition, it should be taken into consideration what the creator of the piece intended to say about society, life, and the world with his or her piece. Anyone reading this review would be forced to think that it was, in fact, impossible to make intelligent criticisms about Max Payne because there was inherently nothing intelligent about it. This is untrue and is both a disservice and a discredit to the creators of the game.
Max Payne is game noir, elegant and sophisticated. From a narrative standpoint, Payne is modeled after Shakespeare's epic tragedy MacBeth. As MacBeth opens three witches set the scene, a horrendous storm "In thunder, lightening, or in rain..."(Shakespeare) and in their rhetoric bring out the theme that will shape the play "Fair is foul, foul is fair: Hover through the fog an filthy air". Instantly, the witches fade, to the middle of a battle, a characteristic opening for a Shakespearian tragedy: starting in the midst of the action. As Max Payne begins the stage is set: New York during the worst blizzard of the century, the game's theme stated from beginning just as in MacBeth. "They were all dead. The final gunshot was an exclamation to everything that had led to this point. I released my finger from the trigger, and it was over". (Max Payne) Max's voice over takes the place of the three witches, preparing the story's unraveling. Instantly you are dropped into game play, effectively living a flashback; you battle helplessly on your bedroom door as your wife and child are murdered in the next room. By emulating an established work of art in the same way the Pictorialist movement emulated classical paintings, Max Payne asserts itself as a piece of art.
That being said, Shakespeare Max Payne is not. However, its story certainly leaves 'Large Breasted Woman with big Guns Raids Ancient Treasure' hanging its head in shame. The more compelling the narrative the better the art. Max Payne is compelling, if not great, narrative.
From an aesthetic standpoint, Max Payne excels. Its artists have created the best faux realistic environment yet created in a game, using detailed photographs to cover the geometry that comprises their 3d world instead of hand-painted textures (the normal approach). By pushing the boundaries of the medium in this way the creators of Max Payne have not only created a compelling piece, they have advanced both games' credibility and their own. The result is a very believable, wholly engrossing, visually pleasing, compelling experience. In its cinematic passages the game displays the creators' nuanced understanding of cinematographic principals such as shot continuity and framing as well as the excellent consideration given to light placement.
In terms of interactive video art, Max Payne breaks new ground and makes excellent use of the medium. The most obviously interesting manipulation of medium is the use of "bullet time" as a gameplay modifier. It's been taken for granted that all games are either real-time or turn-based. Max Payne plays with the notion that a game must be one or the other by enabling the player to go into a slow motion mode at his discretion. This adds a new feel of control and depth to a tried and true gameplay mechanic, leaving a fresh new way of experiencing action. Granted, in this case the concept is used only to enhance the player's ability to dish out violence, but the addition of the concept of time manipulation is one that advances the medium and pushes it to new heights.
In addition to this advancement, the game is aware of its status as a game and plays with that fact. In one particularly poignant passage, Max is rendered unconscious and drugged. When he comes to, the game has taken on a green haze, the aperture of the view has been skewed, and everything has slowed to half-time. Moving causes everything to swim and the sound effects are hollow and surreal. A phone on a desk in the center of the room rings. Picking it up you hear your own voice telling you that you're in a computer game. The phone turns into a gun. The narrative over-voice interacts with the voice on the phone, musing "This whole thing...a computer game? Running around in slow motion to show off my moves? The feeling of my every move being controlled... Normally funny to consider, but just now it was the most horrible thing I could imagine..."(Max Payne) This is a highly sophisticated and artistic manipulation of interactive medium, giving it cognizance of itself. By becoming aware of itself as a medium and manipulating that fact, Max Payne is a pioneering work of interactive video art.
The above is an example of how games can be critiqued in terms of narrative, aesthetics, and interactive effectiveness. If a critical basis could be established based on these characteristics, games as a medium could begin to be understood not purely for their entertainment value, but for their artistic value. Certainly this was the progression followed by film, from nickelodeons to full-fledged theaters. There are currently very loose criteria by which games are evaluated, based solely on their entertainment-enhancing properties. "Graphics, Control, Sound, and Fun-Factor" seem to be common elements in review today. These are idiotic, and must be thrown out. What is necessary for a functioning critical base is an established set of criteria that take into consideration all the factors mentioned above. These criteria must be dictated and revised by critics until there is a consensus. The product of critical consensus: academic awards for excellence, the next step in solidifying a medium's status as an art.
Film has the Oscars, based on artistic principles such as Best Screenplay, Best Director, and Best Cinematography. Photography has the Infinity Awards, based on artistic principles such as Best Applied Photography and Best Design. These clearly defined criteria that constitute excellence is what games need, not "Fun Factor". Something more along the lines of Best Original Game Concept, Best Adapted Game Concept, Best Interactive Experience, Best Visual Experience, and Best Sound Experience would be far more appropriate. These are obviously not the breadth of all awards that could stem from the production of a single game, nor are they what a critical consensus would likely constitute, but they are far more academic and pertinent than "Fun-Factor". Perhaps the first game that deserves to win an 'Oscar' is Peter Molyneux's acclaimed, financially successful opus, Black and White.
Whether or not it was intended, Black and White makes a statement. Essentially, Black and White is a morality test. Graphically and conceptually, Black and White places you in the role of a god, ruler of a tiny island populated by complicated, AI-driven villagers, who worship you. Your advancement in the game is based on your ability to garner belief in yourself as a god. The test of morality comes into play through the different methods available for collecting belief. You are presented with many situations that can be resolved however you choose. The unique perspective of the game's creator first surfaces here, in the situations you are presented with: the situations form the framework of a specific belief system, that of Molyneux himself.
For example, at one point a woman prays at the altar in the center of the village, humbly begging you to save her sick brother who has in his illness wandered off, no where to be found. Dutifully, you scour the island for her missing brother. The real test of your mettle begins as she consistently continues revisiting the altar, which automatically snaps you back to the center of town, effectively inhibiting your ability to locate her missing brother. Do you ignore the annoying interruptions and continue to search? Abandon the search? Drop a rock on the impudent mortal? Locate her brother only so you can sacrifice him to teach her a lesson? The point is that you can be a malicious, vengeful god or you can be a benevolent, helping god. Both approaches advance you equally towards completion of the game, essentially leaving you to do things your way. Feedback alerting you as to whether you're a good or evil god comes in the form of subtle visual clues. If you consistently do evil things to gain belief, such as hurling huge boulders at villages or raining fire from the sky, your tiny island world begins to darken, the trees disappear leaving spiny, foreboding bramble, even the sky turns a dark and murky blood color. This type of visual execution is both unprecedented and brilliant. What other medium can create a world that changes as you change, as your very mood changes?
Essentially, Black and White is a beautifully executed, AI-driven Rorschach test, created to tell you about yourself. Instead of creating a painting or film that tells you his view of society or life, Molyneux has created a game that tells you about yourself through his eyes. This is something that cannot be achieved in any other medium, but is an undeniably compelling and artistic experience. Black and White is part of the new generation of games, games that can be evaluated in terms of other forms of art and in terms of society as a whole and their statement about it.
By drawing parallels to the aforementioned arts it is clear that in games we are not dealing with a novelty or fad, but with an art form in its infancy. Precedents have been set for both art forms that require great investments of time and money (motion pictures) and those are mass-produced (photography). Even now all three major limiting factors inhibiting games from their artistic actualization are waning. The technology that powers games is stabilizing, the critical criteria necessary to define them is being fleshed out, leading to the academic awards for excellence so sorely needed. All of these inexorably encroaching factors point to the fact that games will soon be properly recognized as an art form. Fundamentally, though, it is impossible to deny games' artistic properties.
Games can be aesthetically pleasing: graceful, beautiful, and elegant. Games can present a statement, imbued with the unique perspective of their creator. Games can be created with the intention that they be considered art. Games are able to make a statement about life, society, or themselves. Games can push the boundaries of their own medium and challenge people to think about what they've experienced. Games can be a shared and intellectualized experience. Nothing that can create as compelling an expericence as Max Payne or Black and White can remain unrecognized as an art form for long. Games can and will escape this temporary, flimsy "Tomb".
Email me at Crepusculum@portalofevil.com
The difference between art and craft, as defined by my college English department, is as follows:
-Art forges new ground and manifests new ideas
Pros: Can be the most interesting creations
Cons: Often misunderstood, too strange, or
just meaningless
-Craft repeats what has been done before in new combinations and perhaps with a new twist
Pros: Gauranteed to be decent; based on a
previous success
Cons: Gauranteed not to raise eyebrows; based
on a previous success
Obviously this is not a clear-cut distinction - one could easily find border cases in any medium which is somehow considered art. However, it seems obvious that craft cannot exist without art of some degree; in order to copy an idea, the idea must have been created new by someone once.
We can easily find computer and video games that seem to fall well into either catagory. Art would be a game that broke new ground and was unlike anything that came before it, like Wolfenstein 3D, or Lemmings. Craft would be a game that did what has been done before, with little creativity (Spear of Destiny, or an add-on of new Lemmings levels) or a lot (Half-Life). Once again, it's easy to find border cases, like each new iteration of the ID 3D engine, which were full of new ideas but based on the same old one.
We can see, though, that even if most or almost all computer games fall into the Craft category, and even if some are border cases (they eventually fall into one of the two categories), that the medium as a whole is an artistic one. Craft is simply a word that means uncreative art. Just because it lacks snob appeal doesn't mean it isn't aesthetically pleasing.
Since all computer and video games have no purpose other than to entertain, the medium must be considered an artistic one. Craft does not exist in a medium without the potential for art. The quality of the art, and whether or not it is ideal enough to escape the title "craft," does not, even in the cruelest cynic's video-game-hating eyes allow its dismissal as anything less than poor art. We may notice that the assertion that the art is poor is a qualitative statement, which is in the eye of the beholder, but that the asswertion that it is art at all is a quantitative one and bears no argument. Cogito ergo sum - if someone thinks it's art, the harshest blow one can deal it is say it isn't very good.
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
It really has to depend on the game. Some games were just garbage, and then there was games that made a person wonder just how on earth the machine could do all that. Some of the early games like Super Mario Bros 2 and 3, Blaster Master, Sonic the hedgehog, etc. are sure worthy of being called art. They knew the machine so well in and out that using various tricks they made it appear to do more then it was capable of. I consider these type of games more then just programming of another cartridge to sell to make a quick buck.
creative genius behind todays great games? haha.
being a game coder (small time), i woudl honestly love to believe that. but the truth is, there isnt much genius. yes, there are streaks of it. the quake engine is brilliant, as is the new quake3 engine. other engines for everything. but most games do nothign amazing. DirectX makes the game coder lazy (hey, why should the coder know how to draw graphics? sound? network support?) Same with OpenGL, but every game is made for windows these days (which is unfortunate).
also, many new games are clones of old games. real time stratagy (age of empires, starcraft, warcraft, etc)) is popular, as is 1st person shooter (you know the drill).
there are breaks from this though. they probably require more, as libraries aren't built around them as much (looks at the sims cd on his desk).
yes, some innovation actualyl happens, but its far simpler to drag and drop in libraries and have someone make bitmaps and mp3's to go with it.
this has little to do with it being art though.
lots of art is also based on a genre, and the tools for it are more developed for common art mediums. it parallels nicly.
Simply designing an experience for an audience does not necessarily create art. A balance betwixt sound, color, and pace is not necessarily art. (The following example is not designed to draw flak. I am not anti-porn or pro-censorship or whatever by any means..) Most porn, for example, is an experince designed for an audience in which sound, color, and pace is more or less balanced. For the most part, however, porn is an object for consumption and not for contemplation. It's just a quick way to get from point A to point B. Porn, again for the most part (not exclusively), is not an end unto itself but a tool designed for a very specific purpose or set of purposes.
Many modern conventional movies are the same way. Though they may be artistic -- that is, the camera work may be spot-on, the scoring unusually good, or the costumes particularly well-done -- as a whole many movies cannot be admitted as art in large part, I think, because of a lack of an intention to be treated as such. Intention _must_ be taken into consideration. There *is* a difference between a movie and a film, between "movies" and "cinema" (beyond, of course, the fact that 'film' and 'cinema' are, I think, derived directly from French). The difference lies not only in how members of each are treated but in why they are made. So too are most (not all by any means, but most) video games designed for consumption and not contemplation.
I imagine that a 'movie/film'-type paradigm will emerge among video games once they begin to be looked at and criticized more seriously. I seriously hope that game reviewers will learn to stop throwing around the term "beautiful" so much. It and other similar terms imply a degree of depth that for the most part I just haven't yet seen in most console and computer releases. I think it's *entirely* appropriate that we ask ourselves the last time -- or indeed, if ever -- we were truly moved by a piece of electronic entertainment. Could we perhaps throw these out into the before we christen the entire genre as art? Please? Ones that occur to me include:
Homeworld (the destruction of Kharak was particuarly unbelievable...poignant music, great voice acting, the slow movement of the fireball across the surface of the planet, the piteousness of the task of retrieving the 600,000 colonists, the last of their race...play it, it's amazing)
Photopia, retrievable at the author's home page -- http://adamcadre.ac -- dubiously interactive, but a very moving story that I don't think could have been as effectively told through another medium)
Check out http://www.ifcompetition.org/ -- a lot of interactive ficiton is really straining the borders between computer games and art..indeed, there is an interactive fiction art gallery... http://members.aol.com/iffyart/gallery.htm But I ramble. aanyway.
Most of us Slashdot "youngsters" consider video games to be art because...
...they are art.
...we grew up with them, and thus like them and will defend them.
1:
2:
But once we are old, will we consider that days art forms to be new? Once all of us are 60 there will be many new art forms, like genetically engineered pets (buy Pokemon-like creatures at a pet store), genetically engineered national forests, sky movies (raster scanning lasers aimed at clouds at night), moon carvings (ads visible to the earth could be cut into the moon), talking roads (asphault could be cut like an analog record to make your car buzz spoken words when driven over) and many other things. All of these things I mentioned will surely be art, but, 15 to 45 years from now, when we are 60 and crotchety, will our minds still be open enough to accept these new art forms as art?
That's the question to help you understand why art establishments, run by 60 year olds themselves, would consider rejecting video games as art. Their opinion would be wrong, but it would be popular.
Demoscene - Music, Gfx, DEMOS!
The largest computer artforms is the demo. These demos are music and gfx wrapped into a small package.
There are contests around the world called "Demo Partys" which give awards on best gfx, best music, best demos in sizes (64K,etc), 1 hour to compose tunes with a set of samples, best mp3, best Gfx, most genuine.
Many of these artists and musicians are working in the game industry or entertainment industry. Many of the older 64/apple/amiga game musicians are working for the largest game companies, creating tunes for your games you play today.
Assembly - The largest Demo party in the world
OrangeJuice - Demoscene information center
Google demo directory.
Nectarine - 100% scene music radio!
Crystal Melon - Famous cracktros (minidemos) many converted to Shockwave so people can view them. (They were on a c64 and Amiga!)
If you interested in video game, demo music, mods (4 channel) music, is like a midi with the wave files included.
Check out
Nectarine - 100% scene music radio!
Mod Archive
Google Mod directory
Aminet AmiNet mod archive.
C64: Back in Time CD Rob Hubbard, Martin Galway, Ben Daglish, Chris Hülsbeck, Peter Clarke - Music Game Gods.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2000-03 -01&res=l
Please tell me I'm not the only one who instantly thought of the reference.
Seriously, I think this hits the oft asked question right on. (Why) Should I care how my art is interpreted by others?
Music is a bunch of predefined units (notes), defined as pitch and duration, which are arranged in such a way as to produce a certain output. Programming is a bunch of predefined units (instructions) defined as action and argument, which are arranged in such a way as to produce a certain output. Interestingly, the two have merged. There was a certain monastic order which was taught to sing based on what the people beside and behind you were singing. In other words, if you're in the middle, and the guy behind you is singing a C, maybe you're supposed to sing a D. Then, notes would be given to one row, the 'song' would run through the ranks, and you'd get output in the last row.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Tim ODonnell (trying to be the most
Some web sites and most video games are art.
Few people deny that web sites can be art, not because they are art, but because there's a web site for everybody, and thus everybody likes the web, so they'll defend it just because they like it.
Many people deny that video games are art, not because video games aren't artistic, but because they mainly appeal only to 15 to 30 year old males who are in the mood for violence (and more recently, sex). Thus, video games exclude, confuse, intimidate, bore and offend most of the population.
I have never doubted that video games are art, but I have always doubted that anybody else believed they were art. And it's a shame that the web got there first because video games had a 25 year head start. Just like any other art form, technology and sport, video games have potential to appeal to every demographic.
They just have chosen not to.
Video games are also art in other, more subtle ways. Just as artists celebrated "pop art" by enshrining elements from everyday life in their works--such as the famous painting of Campbell's Soup cans, or the countless works which used the pixellated dots of the print medium--so are videogames a celebration of their times and the aesthetics of the time.
Take the vector graphics of many early arcade games--they reflect their times, and have their counterparts in films of the day such as *WarGames* where the computer Joshua plays through scenarios on giant vector screens at Norad; they are an enashrinement of the technology of the period, and embody it. Take the vector game Star Wars, and show it beside clips of the same actions that occur in the Star Wars movie, and you have a pop art statement as interesting as any made by the great pop artists.
How about Dragon's Lair as an attempt to express something in a medium that wasn't entirely adequate, resulting in a quirky experience that transcends the limits of the medium even for its shortcomings?
The very design of arcade game machines and game consoles is art, much as authentic furniture from the fifties and sixties is prized today for its aesthetic qualities. Such furniture was designed to be entirely functional, not as art--yet it embodies a style and spirit which is today viewed as a certain artistic style, just as the art nouveau reflected in turn-of-the-century Continental signs and gates and baubles, or the art deco reflected in common household decorations of the twenties and early thirties.
The same sort of art can be seen in these functional bits. Look at the extreme angles in a Defender cab, the sweeping design of a Star Wars cockpit--as worthy of being called art as any art deco figurine. Or, how about setting up an exhibit to contrast the design of home consoles, from the 70s inlaid fake woodgrain and brushed metal of an Atari 2600 to the functional boxiness of a NES to the sleek black of a Genesis to the colorful GameCube.
The games themselves can be displayed in a similar manner, with demos running to show the simplicity of Pong's attempt to represent tennis in a 2d world on through Star Wars' attempt to represent the cutting-edge 3d technology of the film through simple vector displays on to the ever more complex and imaginative titles which left simply trying to recreate reality in the 80s and went on to create whole new worlds and fantasies--the Mario of Donkey Kong and Super Mario Brothers as a simplified representation of the hero saving the princess; Pac Man best expressed by the hunger which his Japanese creator in interviews says is the driving (pizza-inspired) idea behind him; Doom's attempt to put the player in a post-apocalyptic world as the protagonist, whereas films have always kept the viewer as a third party to the action; Quake 3 or UT's realism, while portraying the same post-apocalyptic sort of dystopia; the dizzying multi-axis world of the Descent games; Tomb Raider's attempt to make everyone an Indiana Jones; House of the Dead, in the words of the judge who recently struck down a local ban on violent arcade games, who noted it has creativity and even instills a positive message of protecting the innocent by attacking the evil; Duke Nukem and his countless fan levels as the epitome of masculine stereotypes; Discworld the videogames as concrete visual implementations of the world created by the Discworld novels; etc. etc.
To distill my longwinded claptrap: yes, videogames are obviously art.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Cave Drawings - Pong
Simplistic linear representation of real objects.
Medieval - Frogger, 80's games
flat drawings, non-proportional
Rennaisance - Street Fighter and the like
proportional (for god-like proportions), realistic drawings, 3-dimensional, but not baroque
Baroque - Doom & other fps
all the qualities of Rennaisance but also immersive. as baroque sought to surround the viewer in the work, so does the fps.
What would an impressionist game look like? how about a cubist? dada computer game? abstract?
-f
www.blackant.net
Take a good computer game, rip out the story. Place that story in book form. If that book in any way can be considered art (or literature), why isn't the game art?
Games don't speak for the human condition or mind? Go play Sanitarium or Planescape:Torment or Deus Ex.
Wouldn't you have to drive a specific speed to hear the words at the proper pitch?
creation science book
-jfedor
Demos such as GLExcess (non-interactive program with graphics and sound) are no less art than movies - they are movies, except they're made by realtime rendering instead of being a sequence of stored images. I don't associate them with the kind of art you find in galleries, but they probably are art.
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
What about computers as artist? There's an interesting article here about a computer that seems to be able to make creative paintings.
Well, first of all, 'Art' is completely subjective. One person's junk is another person's art, whether the medium be video games, movies, paintings, sculpture, performance art, whatever.
However, in my specific _opinion_, videogames are much like modern movies -- very many of them are created solely for economic reasons and driven by "suits" that just want more of the same. However, once in a while, a game comes along that is clearly art: the product of one person's (or a very small number of like-minded individuals) vision that both looks fantastic (and by fantastic I don't mean it uses the latest and greatest technology, just that the artwork is clearly inspired and consistent) and plays like a dream. Usually such games are the product of small-time garage developers before hitting it big and getting sucked up into the 'studio' system. Once in a while, someone within the system can sneak something really good by the suits, but as with Hollywood, its pretty rare these days.
And to clarify above, don't get me wrong, I know that modern games are often worked on by many people putting in tons of effort, but even in such situations to reach the level of art you generally need one person with a strong vision making the ultimate decisions.
This discussion isn't really about whether computer games are art, it's about whether the concept of computer games as art could be the basis for legal tactics against other people's equally bogus legal tactics. The concept of art has been applied to so many things that it really doesn't mean anything any more. Art is like religion in that it can be attached to almost anything and nobody is supposed to question the sincerity. Garbage, shit and rotting meat have all been exhibited as art in actual art galleries.
So sure, computer games are art. Campaign spin doctoring is art. Closing a real estate deal is art. Drunk driving is performance art. Suing Napster is art, censorship is art, and this post is art. Why not.
Well I am glad that you mentioned you were "small time". As for your comment... It's so easy to throw around the "lazy" comment. It's so much harder to understand exactly how much work goes into making a good game. You will learn this as you progress in the industry.
Good luck...
Art is anything someone makes or does to elicit an emotional response. The real question, for video games, for Cadillacs half-buried in the desert sand imitating Stonehenge or for pictures of Jesus Christ immersed in urine, is "Is it good art?"
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What cannot be art? I mean, if the Cadillac Ranch (near Amarillo, TX) is considered art...
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
YES YES YES
Planescape: Torment has to be one of the most artful games ever produced... if you care to make the art vs. entertainment separation, Ps:T falls heavily on the art side of the spectrum.
1. The plot is sublimely beautiful. Black Isle outdid themselves with the writing and the musical score. The plot isn't a rehash typical fantasy plot; if extracted from the game and made into a novel, it would stand on its own as an acclaimed work. Marvelous.
2. The game did a fantastic job of getting the player interested in the plot. As you became more and more familiar with the gameplay and the interface it seemed to vanish and become a transparent conduit for the rest of the plot.
In my humble opinion, these are the marks of a video game that can be truly called "art": an engrossing plot and a good interface to pipe the player to the plot and its ultimate conclusion. Using these criteria, the only other games I can think of that would constitute "art" would be System Shock 2 and Half-Life. If you haven't played SS2, you owe it to yourself to go to Wal/K-mart/Target and pick it up for 10$ out of the bargain bin, along with Ps:T, which should be there for 15$. That will be the best 25$ you will ever spend by a long shot.
-inq
I can't wait to see a PC in an art gallery running Quake Done Quick in a loop.
Especially after playing Seaman.
http://www.gamenationtv.com/reviews/seaman.shtml
Some games are high creative art (like Seaman), and most others are low trashy art (like Quake). But they're all art.
Why do the eggheads bother asking such easy questions as "are video games art"? Mega-duh. How about asking more interesting questions like "how can we apply art to other computer applications like spreadsheets, word processors, web browsers and programming languages?"
What happens when art meets a programming language? Check out the most amazing stuff I've ever seen done with Flash 5 -- and it's all open source:
http://www.levitated.net/daily/index.html
Don't miss these elegant XML browsers for mapping web pages and reading poetry:
http://www.levitated.net/daily/pondcoderotdaily.ht ml
http://www.levitated.net/daily/pcFinite.html
http://www.levitated.net/daily/may2.html
And here's the most elegant approach to a visual programming language I've ever seen. Click the right button and select "Zoom" a few times, then pan around with the left button to manipulate the icons close-up:
http://www.levitated.net/daily/isoconstruct.html
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
you completely misunderstood the concept of art! the act of creation is art. what the audience thinks means shit.
keep it simple.
Are computer games not considered art simply because of its nature as an entertainment medium...
Hmmm...you mean like Music, Theatre, Movies, and Comics? No, that isn't why at all. In art, there is always a name behind something. When you listen to U2, you listen to 'Achtung Baby' by U2(eg Bono, the Edge), not 'Achtung Baby' by Island Records. The movies you like are often identifiable by the director, and more often the actors within. Jackson Pollack (whether one considers his paintings artistic or not) is most definitely Jackson Pollack, and not Sears. But how much name recognition is there in game programming, aside from a few standouts like Sid Meier and Yu Suzuki? And they're just directors. I think that your average game programmer is just as much of an artist as anyone in the Louvre, but most will never get any quantifiable credit for it in our society. Same goes for many other areas such as advertising (quite a number of graphic artists and conceptual geniuses around there).
That being said, the real reason most people refuse to accept video games as an art form isn't because they're entertaining, but because they're perceived, often rightly so, as juvenile. When the target audience for games ceases to be 12-18 year olds (and 19-35 year old gamers stop acting like 12-18 year olds), people will rethink their stance on the medium. Hey, it happened with comic boo.. excuse me, Graphic Novels!
da Vinci, Botticelli, Giotto. All these guys were closer to the graphics artists and designers of today. Most of their great works were commissioned by kings and millionaires. None of them were starving artists living for their artistic principles alone.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
ask the Slashdot crowd: it's art!
;-P
ask a crowd on the street: are you kidding? it's computer thingamajig whatchamacallit neato trick, not art.
i mean, play Planescape: Torment- if that is not art i don't know what is. visually, musically, and literature-wise. but it doesn't fit any preconceived category.
i mean, when did photography become art? why is what Ansel Adams did art? i think the quick answer is when the technology ceases to be the interesting part of the equation.
what i mean is, when Matthew Brady made his famous Gettysburg photographs in the Civil War, they were surely artisitic, but most people's reactions, like the New York Times editorials of the day, were like: "behold, this amazing new thing called the photograph, gee whiz! look what you can do with it! i feel like i'm there on the battlefield!" everyone was reacting mentally to what Brady was doing with the camera, not what he was doing irregardless. but by the time Ansel Adams was walking around Yosemite, who cared about what the camera was doing, it was like, "look at that awesome rock! this photo is art!" the technology ceased to be interesting, what you were doing with the technology was able to stand on its own two feet in the human mind.
it was no doubt what Brady did at Gettysburg was art, but at the time, most people were not thinking about anything but the marvel of the new tech called the photograph. same with Planescape: Torment, or Doom, or Myst. Of course it's art, but the average person is like: "well spank my bottom! you can do that with a piece of silicon and a cathode ray tube? dang!"
but in some decades, when computers are ubiquitous and unremarkable (yes, they still are new and weird and remarkable nowadays. we are still stretching the boundaries of what we can do with them and where to put them and what they look like), then an Ansel Adams of computer games will come along, when we're all grandpas and grandmas, and our greatgrandkids will be like, "that game Qwerty, where you have to use a keyboard to shoot things called Imps on a 2D screen? it's so retro! that's art!"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Before we ask whether something is art, perhaps we have to specify what we mean by art and, presumably, what we mean by entertainment.
If that question remains unanswered, there could be no meaningful discussion of whether something is art or not.
A simple (and simplistic) definition is that art aims at making one a better person while entertainment is just a pastime. By that definition computer games (most of them anyway)
do not qualify as art.
I wouldn't call Minesweeper great art. But I can and do call Final Fantasy 4 (2 in the U.S.) a work of art. What is the difference?
Some types of video games have as much plot, story, and character development as a novel. Some have as much original and beautiful music as a symphony. Though these traits are shown at their highest watermark in (IMHO) games like FF4, there are many, many other games which include what I'd call impressive art. Acid Tetris and Dune 2 contain great music, if you ask me. Adn I'm sure there are others who, like me, replay Unreal primarily for the sheer beauty of its fantastical world and compelling soundtrack. Other games might not be as "beautiful" per se, but are rendered with amazing craftsmanship and attention to detail, like Half-Life, and this craftsmanship makes them art in my eyes.
Quite frankly, when people are busy arguing whether something is "art" or not, I have one criteria: is it a work of skill, created by a heartfelt dedication or effort on the part of a talented craftsman(woman)? To me, if this case is met, it is a small step to saying something is art. I see video game design, plot/script writing, image editing, graphic design, painting, and music composition all as art forms. Why should something that is a grand amalgamation of these, be considered less than art?
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
The other criteria I have as to whether something is art:
Does it try to make you *feel* something?
This should be considered part of the above post.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Tell that to most of the most celebrated modern artists. Picasso used some very strange media, and were he alive today he would doubtless use computer imagery for some of his displays. Or Andy Warhol--don't tell me he wouldn't dabble in computerized forms of art.
Most new forms of art are derided at their inception. Impressionism was just a bunch of chicken scratches. Cubism was anti-aesthetic. Modern art was a bunch of youngsters who didn't want to take the time to learn "real" art.
The people who made such claims are considered shortsigted, narrow minded, and unable to appreciate real art, today. The same will be said about the people who are unable to see video games as art. Indeed, it is far more difficult and takes far more art to create a 3d world like Quake's than it does to make a simple sketch. Anyone who cannot appreciate that is, dare I say, shortsighted, narrow minded, and unable to appreciate real art.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
art1 (ärt)
n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: "Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice" (Joyce Carol Oates).
arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.
Printing. Illustrative material.
Exactly.
So the people that say it isn't art, are in essence saying the whole is LESS than the sum of its parts.
I think you've hit on something here. The problem is, the medium of computer games and graphics is younger than the people who are defining "art" right now. Until the fine art collectors of today are gone, and are replaced by people who are growing up right now that value a Picasso as much as a copy of Final Fantasy 6 (3 US), computer games are going to be merely entertainment. They are art, but it isn't recognized yet, much like it took a while for photography, movies, music (The classical composers did that as a paid job, and it was considered as such.) etc...
#art=(#art#)
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Since I started learning Japanese, I recently heard about a major genre that currently exists only in Japan, the social/dating sim. The "killer app" of this genre was Tokimeki Memorial in 1995 (a success on the scale of Doom), and since then there have been thousands of clones. Unfortunately, these games revolve around conversations with game characters, so they are unplayable for people who don't understand Japanese. And because of the aforementioned risks, no one has ever dared release one in the West. As a result, the genre is completely unheard of here.
As a jaded gamer, I find playing a completely new genre for the first time in 5 years very refreshing. Dating sim gameplay is fundamentally different from anything I've seen before. I'm hopeful that the genre will eventually break into the Western market. If you are looking for a paradigm shift, this is perhaps where it will come from.
Animated cartoons didn't used to be "art". Then came "collectable animation cels". Then came serial numbered copies of animation cels. Now, there are serially numbered copies of hand-painted imitations of frames from computer-generated movies offered for sale.
Games are moving in that direction, as the visuals get better. "The Art of Myst" showed at SFMOMA last summer. There's a Myst coffee-table book. We're getting close.
"Fine art" is a specific term with a specific meaning, and most movies don't qualify.
That said... of course video games are art! Art communicates a cultural message of some kind: it makes the person receiving the art feel something. Videogames that don't achieve this suck.
This isn't just the post-Quake games either. Pacman is art. Maybe it's simpler than modern games, but it has a cultural impact.
Art is the part of culture that arises for its own sake. People don't play videogames because games help them perform any tasks (well except for the USMC people reported to use hacked copies of Quake for training, but that's different); they play videogames because games are interesting in themselves. They play games for the experience.
As another rule of thumb: If it's art, some people will think it's more interesting when they're stoned. It may be fun to go to work stoned but it's not better; some people think that (for example) The Wall is better stoned. Some people apparently believe the same think about Counterstrike.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
IMO one should add a definition "A work of human creation that attempts to capture, define, display, or induce emotion or complex emotions in the viewer, listener, or user."
As much as I'd like to be able to say that one of my favorite pastimes is an art, I don't think so, because the only 'beauty' most games are created to invoke is a lush green pile of cash, and the only people who get any emotion besides "whee" from the games are their creators, so they wouldn't be successful works of art. Things that entertain may or may not be art, but if they're only meant to entertain they definitely aren't.
Oh boy...
I am persuing a career in cinema and film right now. I consider the medium of film/cinema to be one of of the most vividly conveying mediums out there. It can combine the magic of music with the various aspects of visual elements, and intertwine them with a cohesive plot and characters.
In order to keep this on topic, games are, likewise, art. The combine many different elements - music, story, imagry, and, most importantly, creativity depicted. Never let it be said that the great artist, idSoftware, is of little artistic value!
However, I think we should draw the line quite firmly and insist that most software should not be considered, 'art', and here is why.
I'm not aware of the legal definition, but if we look at the dictionary definition of
art, we see that conventional software could indeed be included under this definition, possibly under, "High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value". However, I would argue that this should not be the case.
If we look at art in a historical fashion, we will notice that art has never held much of a functional purpose, with rare exclusion. This is part of the beauty of art. Surely, the AK-47 is an artfully crafted weapon - inexpensive (in a manufacturing sense), well made, easy to maintain, and accurate. Nobody that is knowledgeable of firearms would deny this fact. The same could be said for the first automobiles made by Henry Ford. However, like most software, both of these items perform or performed very specific tasks. They were undeniably artful in craft, but they are rarely considered 'art', unless we're talking about 'artifacts'.
Software should be considered using the same standards. If it performs a practical function (besides relaxation), it should be considered what it was intended - a tool. Software, such as games, that is intended for leasurely consumption should be deemed 'art'.
From the other side of the fence, I'm sure that everyone that has ever created anything they they were proud of has felt that their work was artful and skillful - only naturally.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Hmmm. From the sound of what you wrote (and excepting the bit about the NEA), I don't think we're even coming from very different angles, actually ;) [At least narrowly ...]
;)
... it's definitely artistic, and a good example of how engineering projects can be beautiful -- I wonder (seriously, not something I have any idea about) whether Mr. Eiffel did intend it as art per se, as much as a demonstration of "what a cool thing I can build with steel."
Yes, Duchamp's Fountain is exactly the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Whether or not it's to my taste, and however "legitimate" I or anyone else thinks it is, if Duchamp called it art and meant it as art, his call as the work's creator trumps mine as an ill-bred, thick-headed, literalist critic. Sure, I might be the guy scoffing at it as "just a toilet" but I'd still consider myself to be making fun of an artwork, rather than denying an artist the right to define the intent of his work.
I see no reason that video games can't be art in the same sense, and often with about as much appreciation from me
Aside: The K-cars sucked, which may be the fault of the engineers, but surely they're not the most representive product of pure "engineering"! Unreliable, unergonomic pieces of junk that seemed to come most often in a shade of brown UPS turned down. (Now, a nice Volvo 240 wagon or a Volkswagen Beetle is a different story. Those I think the engineers can be proud of.)
The Eiffel tower I think is part of a thin overlap
And the NEA? Well, I think I have run out of shame on that count. Only in my darker moments would I concede that America "deserves" certain of the projects that money from that organization has supported. A fully voluntary NEA I'd be fine with (and there are plenty of art-supporting foundations) although I might have an aesthetic objection still, but so long as a penny of tax dollars go into it, I'm all for dismemberment -- immediate, complete and unapologetic. I'm unconvinced that the NEA contributes to the general welfare, and certain that collecting taxes for it does not. (As a pursuit of happiness issue, though, people can freely support even art which I wouldn't purchase for the lavish mansion I do not own.)
Cheers,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Posting late on this one, so chances are it won't get read too much.. but here goes.
The consensus seems to be in the direction of "games are art". I would tend to agree, although in my mind the definition of art is always fuzzy, almost annoyingly so actually. However I think an important question to ask is whether or not calling video games art has any important implications. I.e. what makes it important to make a distinction? Certainly an art exibit portraying video games in the MoMa would be interesting, but does that somehow change the status of video games?
I'm not sure, but does art follow different legal (patent/trademark/intellectual property) rules? This could have dramatic implications for the game business if there is a change, although this seems like the biggest possible effect I can think of.
Does it change people's opinions if we start calling QuakeIV art or not? Do art departments at universities suddenly have to start trying to hire Graphics and Computer Science Ph.Ds because it's now art? Maybe several new "artsy" magazines will spring up for the coffee table focusing on old/new computer games?
But maybe (and most importantly) will my Fiance may now let me play more games because they are no longer just a waste of time, but artistic expression?
Brett
__ No registration required to read this message. They did it in the Matrix.
Source code is art (at least considered as such by law here in Finland AFAIK).
(Computer) Images are art.
(Computer) Music is art.
The (game) storyline is art.
Put all this together and you still have art, right?
In a way that makes the player an artist?
(Ever been as a spectator in a good game of Quake or other FPS?)
The decordova museum in lincoln ma had an exhibit which included the latest state of the art video games. Zaxxon was free!! this was in the 80's and had a bunch of games..
since the decordova is art museum arcade games must be art.
If they are good art or bad art might depend on the game in question.
The problem with most games is that whatever art is within them is often overshadowed by other deficiencies within the game. The graphics within them often are quickly dated, there are very few notable storylines, and the coding elegance is frequently sub-par. And you didn't even address the artistry of gameplay.
If some game WERE to be artistic on ALL levels, then maybe I could consider it art. The only games that even come close to art are in my opinion Tetris, which when first written was an incredible example of code and gamplay elegance, and possibly Myst and it's imitators, which had very strong visuals and intrigueing storylines.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I would most definintely consider videogames to be an art form. Actually, I believe they represent a particularly exciting confluence of art and science. The success of a videogame is essentially rooted in its storytelling ability and capacity to elicit emotion from the subject gamer. Sometimes this takes the form of something a little more artsy-fartsy (e.g. Final Fantasy, Resident Evil or of course Myst), and sometimes the appeal is fairly lowbrow (e.g. DOA3).
But even in the case of wham-bam fighting games, the appeal of a game its ability to draw a user in to the action of combat and the clash of fighting styles and personalities contained therein. It's not all that different from what makes a dance piece successful (or not).
Bottom line, videogames represent the germination of a legitimately new form of art, one that combines classic elements such as storytelling, visual art, choreographed movement and music with technology like no other. It is a young form, and one that has its roots purely in the value of entertainment. But is also an evolving form, and as someone who alternately wares the hat of artist and techie, I'm excited to see where it will go.
Howard Dean for president
As a game programmer, I think that games could be art, but that's not they way the are produced. Fanboys tend to think we're ivory tower geniuses, but the reality is that were almost completely driven by schedules, marking, and sales predictions. The killer is that the great, great majority of games are sold to "kids"--where "kid" means 8 to 16 or so. So most of the time you have guys in their twenties or thirties or forties trying to dumb down games so they'll appeal to the weird sort of crowd that still believes in Santa Claus (i.e. reads comic books, only likes action movies, still thinks they can make a go of professional skateboarding).
Obviously, Picasso would have dabbled in computer imagery for his displays, because he was an extremely talented man who brought those talents to bear in *every* medium of the day. He wasn't a painter. He was a real artist, like Da Vinci, or Michelangelo, both painter and sculptor and inventor of dazzlingly new things. To imagine that Picasso would *not* have dabbled in computer imagery would be the flawed assumption. Great minds are expansive, and do not deride as your small one does based on the functionality of the medium.
Case in point, Picasso once made a sculpture using little more than some very functionsal and extremely common utilitarian items--an absinthe set. They were everywhere at the time--you could not go to a cafe or restaurant and not see them. And obviously they were "purely functional". Yet Picasso was not above using such commonplace and utilitarian items to create his art.
You show your stripes as an elitist art snob, the ssort who always sneers at the avante-garde, and who is therefore doomed to be mistaken. Impressionism was derided as childish scribbling. Music was considered a trade, not an art. And you sir are the type who made such mistakes. I can tell by the tone of your post, and particularly by this snooty bit: "Give art functionality, and one of the hottest debates on whether it can be any longer accepted as visual art cranks into gear."
Wow, something functional isn't art? So, Greek vases are not art, beause they were used at table? Roman mosaics are not art, because they were carelessly stepped on every day? Italian frescoes are not art, because they were basically Renaissance wallpaper? How about mass-produced woodcuts, the magazines of their day? But what if they were by Durer?
To even suggest that something is not art by virtue of its functionality is to display both an ignorance of the history of art and an arrogance exactly like that shown by the old guar stodgies nobody ever remembers. To Salieri, Mozart was just an ignorant childish bum; yet we only remeber Salieri's name today in the context of his rivalry with Mozart--despite his "superiority" in creating classic pieces as opposed to Mozart's "undisciplined" beer-hall-inspired diddlings, Mozart was the real artist and Salieri more like the tradesman.
Have fun in your snooty arrogance at assuming the argument that functionality precludes art has any merit whatsoever. It is the argument of the has-beens and never-was'. It is the argument of an ignorant elite, and this assertion can be proven by going to any museum of classical ars and looking at their array of perfectly functional ancient tableware. Or by looking at a mass-produced Durer woodcut, or any number of things which the elites would never have considered worthy of the name art.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
DirectX makes the game coder lazy (hey, why should the coder know how to draw graphics? sound? network support?)
That's just dumb. When you're writing a game you just call a "draw 3D model" function (or "draw sprite" or whatever). Even in the days of people writing assembly language texture mappers on the 486, only 1 guy on a project cared about it. The "draw 3D model" call was the same for everyone else. You don't write games at the micro-optimization level. And games, most certainly, cannot be equated with graphics engines.
I told her that anything can be art. Look across the street and observe that Wendy's restaraunt building.. it could be art.. you may not like it, but it is art nonetheless if someone deems it so.
I guess that is why the Critic was invented.. someone has to tell you whether or not you're full of shit, though there still might be someone out there that likes it regardless.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...